BAJA VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein questions the impugned order of the Executive Engineer, R&B, Special Division, Kothagudem dated 03.03.2015 whereby the work allotted to the petitioner for formation of a bypass road to Kothagudem Town from KM 41/9 of Thallada Bhadrachalam road and ending at KM 135/6 of Vijayawada Jagadalpur road (NH -221) in Khammam District on 50:50 cost sharing basis was terminated. The aforesaid order has been passed determining the petitioner's contract as per clause 60 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Specified Standards by determining the LS agreement No.52/2012 -2013 dated 06.03.2013.

(2.) PETITIONER states in the affidavit that he entered into agreement dated 06.03.2015 with the third respondent for the aforesaid work value of which was Rs.33 crores and the time for completion was 24 months from the date of agreement. Petitioner states that he procured men, material and machinery for commencing the work from 06.03.2013 and completing it from 06.03.2015. However, due to latches and failure on the part of the respondents in handing over workable site and other obligations, the petitioner states that he could not complete the work. Petitioner, therefore, requested for extension of time on 06.05.2013 pointing out that the respondents have not supplied mark outs and local people are not allowing the petitioner to go ahead with the work and requested the respondents to handover workable site with mark outs. Petitioner, however, states that the fourth respondent straightway terminated the work under his proceedings dated 07.10.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the third respondent and on sympathetic consideration, the third respondent is stated to have revised the work schedule and not ratified the termination.

(3.) PETITIONER alleges that the respondents are not cooperating with the petitioner to proceed with the work by removal of high tension lines and handing over the reach by removing the encroachment etc. which hampered the completion of the work. Petitioner states that the third respondent gave him a notice dated 02.04.2014 requiring the petitioner to accelerate the work. Petitioner also alleges that the respondents have not paid the running bills of nearly Rs.300 lakhs in spite of several requests and are not providing the workable site. In those circumstances, petitioner filed WP.No.26198 of 2014 and the third respondent again reconsidered the entire matter and asked the petitioner to complete the DBM from KM 0/0 to 2/4 and WMM from KM 6/4 to 7/4 by end of September 2014 by keeping the termination orders in abeyance. Petitioner, therefore, had withdrawn the writ petition on 25.09.2014, as the termination orders were not proceeded with. Once again the fourth respondent issued a letter dated 24.02.2014 asking the petitioner to accelerate the work and once again the petitioner is stated to have approached the third respondent by a detailed representation. However, while so, the fourth respondent has issued the impugned proceedings. Petitioner, therefore, questions the same, inter alia, on the ground that the Executive Engineer was not competent to terminate the contract and he has not followed due process of law and has passed the impugned order without considering his explanation in a hurry. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying the petitioner's averments and it is stated that the petitioner has already availed an amount of Rs.79.54 lakhs in March 2013 for mobilization of men, material and machinery but the petitioner having failed to mobilize the same, the fourth respondent informed him about the failure under letters dated 15.04.2013 and 29.04.2013. That apart petitioner was contacted by the fourth respondent and the field officers on several occasions to commence the work. Hence, the petitioner's contention that he mobilized men and machinery is denied. It is also stated that the petitioner brought machinery to the site to clear the jungle in one kilo meter but after one week shifted the machinery without information to the department, which is evidenced by the photographs taken by the field officers. It is also stated that the site was clear to start the work from KM 0/0 to 2/650 and widening and strengthening from KM 7/6 to 11/200 and even the few electrical lines are situated beyond formation width and beyond centre line of road, which will not effect the execution of bypass road. In paras 7 and 8 it is specifically stated as follows: